Split Thread A second impeachment

[metacristi]

It's no "impeachment of free speech" to say that free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without any regard to consequences. In Trump's case, he gave no thought at all to what effect his speech, in context, might have beyond how he hoped it might benefit him politically. In a US president, that kind of unbalanced approach fits pretty well the political definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," since what might not need sanction for somebody in a lesser position is kind of what the provision is for in the case of a greater one. So, no- anyone in the future is not going to be a victim, only the ones in a position like Trump's who might need the example.

I'd say that trying to prove at all costs that Trump incited violence and trying to loose the interpretation of the First Amendment are not at all rational (what in fact many are doing now, including you, following the well known 'progressive' recipe with the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on). Much more rational is this, we owe the modern world to it, the advent of minority identity politics after 1990 (largely internalized by the Democrats these days) actually brought us closer to the Middle Ages.

 

[catsmate]

This makes me unsure there will be a trial. There is no precedent for this after he has left office. Impeachment trials are to remove someone from public office. As of Jan 20 he no longer holds public office. I think this will wind up in the courts before it goes before the Senate.

Incorrect. Belknap.

 

[johnny karate]

So were Trump's actions as well. Political in nature (in spite of his unsupported conspirational theory). The solution here is definitely not to apply the 'progressive' tactics of restraining free speech, 'diluting' ad infinitum what means to be 'racist' and saying at most half the truth (for he definitely does not invite people to violence, this reminds me of the mad accusations that Breivik was the result of criticism of islam, be it unsupported). It does matter how they try to eliminate Trump (no matter if you do not agree overall with Trump's actions), as I said if they succeed to 'cancel' him using this 'progressive' tactics then basically anyone can be a victim in the future. Punishing Trump should not become the impeachment of free speech.

When they came for the insurrectionists and right wing terrorists, I said “Good, they deserve it”.

But when they came for me, I said “I didn’t take part in a violent coup or commit acts of terrorism” and they said “You’re all good then. Carry on” and everything worked out fine because only a ******* idiot would think there’s a slippery slope here.

 

[Darat]

I'd say that trying to prove at all costs that Trump incited violence and trying to loose the interpretation of the First Amendment are not at all rational (what in fact many are doing now, including you, following the well known 'progressive' recipe with the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on). Much more rational is this, we owe the modern world to it, the advent of minority identity politics after 1990 (largely internalized by the Democrats these days) actually brought us closer to the Middle Ages.

I agree that Trump has been the most prominent campaigner against the 1st amendment but what do you mean by the highlighted? Whilst he has tried his best to get around the first amendment do you have any evidence he has been successful?

 

[johnny karate]

I'd say that trying to prove at all costs that Trump incited violence and trying to loose the interpretation of the First Amendment are not at all rational (what in fact many are doing now, including you, following the well known 'progressive' recipe with the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on). Much more rational is this, we owe the modern world to it, the advent of minority identity politics after 1990 (largely internalized by the Democrats these days) actually brought us closer to the Middle Ages.

I bet the right wing terrorist at the Capitol wearing the “Camp Auschwitz” shirt has some interesting thoughts on minority identity politics.

 

[metacristi]

I agree that Trump has been the most prominent campaigner against the 1st amendment but what do you mean by the highlighted? Whilst he has tried his best to get around the first amendment do you have any evidence he has been successful?

I mean that they try now to use it to widen what is punishable, ultimately the effect is the same as introducing all kind of 'hate speech' laws based on the 'progressive justice' prevalent today (which by the way lead to the 'cancel culture' more and more rampant today; something which lead rather toward the 'justice' offered by Stalin is enough to make you wary). Not the best move I'd say.

 

[Darat]

I mean that they try now to use it to widen what is punishable, ultimately the effect is the same as introducing all kind of 'hate speech' laws based on the 'progressive justice' prevalent today (which by the way lead to the 'cancel culture' more and more rampant today; something which lead rather toward the 'justice' offered by Stalin is enough to make you wary). Not the best move I'd say.

Er.. “widening” the 1st amendment would mean less speech is covered. I think you have this back to front.

 

[turingtest]

I'd say that trying to prove at all costs that Trump incited violence and trying to loose the interpretation of the First Amendment are not at all rational (what in fact many are doing now, including you, following the well known 'progressive' recipe with the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on). Much more rational is this, we owe the modern world to it, the advent of minority identity politics after 1990 (largely internalized by the Democrats these days) actually brought us closer to the Middle Ages.

Including me? I'm sorry, can you give some examples of me engaging in "the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on"? Because if you can't (and you won't), I'd suggest that it's you engaging in some strategic dilution- I would count myself as a progressive, yes, but the idea that that, by definition, means I must have cheapened the worth of those terms by overusing them is itself kind of a cheap and understuffed strawman.

So- whaddya got?

 

[metacristi]

I bet the right wing terrorist at the Capitol wearing the “Camp Auschwitz” shirt has some interesting thoughts on minority identity politics.

Waste of time. This does not make the attempt to curve free speech via all sort of at most half truths morally or intellectually valid (of course ultimately justified via 'doing justice', the problem is that that sort of 'justice' is not that much far from what Stalin or Mao did). Try something else.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I love how many racists and fascists think that, even if true, the Left calling too many people racists and fascists would mean anything at all or in anyway excuse them.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'd say that trying to prove at all costs that Trump incited violence and trying to loose the interpretation of the First Amendment are not at all rational (what in fact many are doing now, including you, following the well known 'progressive' recipe with the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on). Much more rational is this, we owe the modern world to it, the advent of minority identity politics after 1990 (largely internalized by the Democrats these days) actually brought us closer to the Middle Ages.

He has been lying about the election since the morning after election day.

Does he have a right to do that? I suppose he does. And the elected representatives of the people have the right to throw the S.O.B. out for using his office to undermine American democracy.

I'll say it again. If everything he said were true, then the appropriate response would in fact be insurrection and revolution. The mob that he inspired was doing exactly what they ought to have done, if the statements Trump made had been true. By lying to them, and getting them to believe his lies, he prompted an entirely predictable response.

In my humble opinion, that sort of thing makes one unfit for the presidency, even if he would only be in office for a few more days. After his lies, which have been so poisonous to American democracy, one more day is one too many.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You can always tell when someone knows that they are wrong when they can never answer a question, only discuss the philosophy of the question.

The person who shouted fire in crowded theater always wants to talk about his right to free speech, never the people he got killed.

 

[turingtest]

Er.. “widening” the 1st amendment would mean less speech is covered. I think you have this back to front.

I think he's overthinking the whole thing. By which I do not mean more actual thought is covered- in fact, it's one of those interesting terms that means essentially the same as what sounds like the opposite, "underthinking."

 

[metacristi]

Er.. “widening” the 1st amendment would mean less speech is covered. I think you have this back to front.

Err they try now to punish for example "high crimes and misdemeanors" and so on even if no incitement to violence is clear in Trump's speeches. If all is let like that I will not be surprised if the First Amendment ceases to protect free speech effectively. As I said this is a much better idea.

 

[dejudge]

(I know this is late)

In fact, the republicans could go a long way to "healing the nation" by coming out with a strong (and honest) statement that

1) There is no evidence of significant voter fraud,
2) They acknowledge that the election was not stolen
3) Biden is the duly elected president,
4) Legitimately chosen by a majority of voters in the US and by the electoral college, and
5) Those who continue to fight the outcome of the election are trying to subvert democracy and harming the country

It's really not that hard.

It must be noted that in 2017 it was VP Biden himself who rejected the Democrats objections and certified Trump as the winner of the 2016 Presidential election.

Now it is VP Pence's turn to certify Biden as the winner of the 2020 Presidential election, Trump supporters attempted to assassinate Pence because he certified Biden as President elect.

Whether or not the impeachment trial occurs it is clear the Republican party has committed political "suicide".

 

[metacristi]

Including me? I'm sorry, can you give some examples of me engaging in "the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on"? Because if you can't (and you won't), I'd suggest that it's you engaging in some strategic dilution- I would count myself as a progressive, yes, but the idea that that, by definition, means I must have cheapened the worth of those terms by overusing them is itself kind of a cheap and understuffed strawman.

So- whaddya got?

You are specifically trying to claim that what Trump said is not covered by the First Amendment as free speech. That you may not accept the other parts of the 'progressive' tactics is immaterial, it's enough that the Democrats and many others do it plenty.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Whether or not the impeachment trial occurs it is clear the Republican party has committed political "suicide".

The Republican Party has been committing suicide every other day or so ever since Nixon and seems sure as hell to be taking its sweet time actually getting around to dying.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

"I swear to tell the t-t-r-r-u ... excuse me, what is this word?"

Oh, now, let's be fair. Trumpies *love* the word 'truth'. It's the referent they have a fraught relationship with.

 

[JoeMorgue]

They love truth. They hate facts.

 

[pgwenthold]

Err they try now to punish for example "high crimes and misdemeanors" and so on even if no incitement to violence is clear in Trump's speeches. If all is let like that I will not be surprised if the First Amendment ceases to protect free speech effectively. As I said this is a much better idea.

How do we know Trump incited the insurrectionists?

Easy.

Ask them.

"Why did you go and storm the Capitol?"

And they have been asked that question. And their answer is, "Because the President told us to."

We don't have to speculate about whether Trump incited them to act. They have affirmed the fact that he did.